Excerpt:.....14(i)(g) read with section 14(8) stand..........being vacated by the respondents-tenants. the petitions for ejectment were instituted in 1960. the rent controller found al the ingredients covered by section 14(i)(g) of the delhi rent control act to be satisfied by the petitioners and as such he found that the premises were required bona fide by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and that such work of rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the different tenants. the rent controller further found that the petitioners-landlords were in possession of requisite funds for the purpose of carrying out such building work and the estimates had also been got prepared by them. however, the rent controller dismissed eviction petitions on the ground that sanctioned plans which the landlords had.....

Judgment:

N.N. Goswamy, J.

1. This judgment will also dispose of SAO 203 of 1974 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31-7-1974 passed by the Rent control Tribunal.

2. Shri Jagdish Prashad and Rajinder Kumar, the predecessor in-interest of the present appellants filed 17 petitions for ejectment against various tenants in respect of property bearing municipal Nos. 1483 to 1492 ward No. XIV, Gali Chulhe Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The petitions were filed on the ground that the premises were required by them bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding and that the said work of rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the respondents-tenants. The petitions for ejectment were instituted in 1960. The Rent Controller found al the ingredients covered by Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to be satisfied by the petitioners and as such he found that the premises were required bona fide by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and that such work of rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the different tenants. The Rent Controller further found that the petitioners-landlords were in possession of requisite funds for the purpose of carrying out such building work and the estimates had also been got prepared by them. However, the Rent Controller dismissed eviction petitions on the ground that sanctioned plans which the landlords had obtained, while moving the eviction petitions were found to have lapsed at the time the eviction petitions came up for disposal. The landlords went up in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal and in second appeal to this Court. While disposing of the second appeal, It was held by A.N. Grover, J. (as his lordships then was ) that since al the points had been found in favor of the landlords, they were entitled to the order of recovery of possession in case they could again place sanctioned plans before recovery of possession in case they could again place sanctioned plans before the Controller. The proceedings were consequently remanded with the direction that the Controller will proceed to make order for recovery of possession of premises against the tenants after the plans which had previously been filed, had been sanctioned, but later rejected, are produced before him duly sanctioned afresh by the Municipal Corporation. This order was made on the basis that the original plans had probably been rejected because they were not in accordance with the New Building Bye-laws and that in case the landlords could still obtain sanction of the same plans which they had obtained earlier there was no reason or justification for not making an order of eviction on the ground given in Section 14(l)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

3. After the aforesaid Order dated 3-2-1966, the landlords produced the sanctioned plans before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the sanctioned plans produced by the landlords were materially the same as were placed earlier in the proceedings and as such the Rent Controller passed the order of recovery of possession of the premises in occupation of different tenants. The order is dated 5-4-1971.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order various appeals were filed by different tenants before the Rent Control Tribunal. During the pendency of those appeals, the premises in question were transferred by the original landlords in favor of the present appellants. The learned Tribunal held that since the premises had been transferred, the cause of action did not survive to the present appellants. The Tribunal further held that the new plans submitted by the landlords were not exactly the same and as such relying on the order passed by A.N. Grover, J., the Tribunal held that the plans had to be the same and since they were not the same the landlords were not entitled to the order of eviction. Consequently all the appeals were allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was set aside.

5. The appellants preferred second appeals to this Court. During the pendency of the appeals, all other appeals except SAOs. 202 and 203 of 1974, were settled between the parties and the tenants agreed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlords. The respondents in the set two appeals were not willing to settle the matter. Only two questions were agitated before me by the counsel for the parties. The first one being that the cause of section had not disappeared merely because the property had been transferred. There is a difference between the provisions of Section 14(i)(e) and Section 14(i)(g). Under Section 14(i)(e) the requirement is that of the landlord and under Section 14(i)(g) the requirement is of the property and not of the person. The section only contemplates that the Controller has to be satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such radical alternation is in the public interest and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose, are available with the landlords. Except the last requirement regarding the funds all the ingredients of Section 14(i)(g) read with Section 14(8) stand satisfied. As regards the funds available with the present appellants who have purchased the property during the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed for permission to adduce evidence for the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the present appellants had adequate funds. The application was, however, rejected. I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting such an application. In the circumstances, the appellants will be entitled to prove before the Rent Controller that they have adequate funds for the purpose of reconstruction.

6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that new plans submitted by the landlords were materially the same and as such the Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that the plans were materially different. I called upon the counsel for the respondents to satisfy me that the plans were in any way different as far as the present appellants are concerned. The learned counsel was unable to show me if the plans were not the same at least in respect of the present appellants. In the circumstances it has to be held that the plans were materially the same. However, the plans which were sanctioned, were valid only up to January 1970 which time has since lapsed. The landlords will have to get the plans revalidated and if and when they are able to get the plans revalidated, they are entitled to the order of eviction.

7. For the reason recorded above, the appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the Rent Controller with the directions to pass an order of eviction as soon as the revalidated plans are filed before the Controller and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller that necessary funds, for the purpose, are available with the present appellants. Since it is a very old case, it would be desirable if the matter is disposed of within three months from the date of hearing before the Rent Controller. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 14th October, 1985. The records be sent back forthwith. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals.